On Thursday 17 May 2007 11:04 am, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 12:39:47AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Actually, in my limited experience, SAS is marginally less crappy than
SATA,
> > and has a higher MTBF, probably because the manufacturers try to cut less
> > corners. But if one can get high-quality SATA drives (where?!), I don't
> > know why SAS would be superior to SATA.
>
> SAS is dual ported so you can have redundant cables and controllers.
Because the controller's far more likely to go than the moving parts...
On the models I saw they also literally gold plated the connectors, spun the
disks faster, and basically did everything they could think of to make the
same basic bundle of components more expensive. (Of course the fundamental
thing you do to make it more expensive is have smaller production runs in the
first place...)
Rob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
